|
Lecture Notes: 08-22-04
“ . . . it is . . . regrettable . . .” --- Thomas Patrick Carroll,
former CIA Case Officer,--- KSFO radio
It reminds me of the
time the CIA asked me to help them---
Counselor: Shhh, you are on.
Ah, yes, well, perhaps
we should talk about that later. . . .
“Wild eyed.” That’s what they are calling him. “Losing
it.” That’s what they are saying about him. But to our visitors here at New Ruskin
College, all of these developments
will come as no surprise.
College visitors will
already have seen how reckless Mr. J. F. F. Kerry is. They will have seen him
first back out on the Imus show when we first exposed Imus’ involvement with the organized oppression, (see Imus Protests
top left of this page), for the . . . what is it now? 12 years since I first published the Last Letter. (see Last Letter Archive at the Moynihan)
But Kerry then went
on the Imus show anyway. And then he went on a second time even after we published
the letter to the F. C. C., (see e-mail Archive Out Box at the Moynihan), which
was never actually sent.
Counselor: You never sent it?
How could I without
evidence?
The absurdity of the
situation is that you have organizations, “News” organizations like, oh, for example, ABC News, and not just the
local station, KGO, with that crew, Rosie Allen, Ted Baxter ---
Counselor: Ed.
What?
Counselor: His name is Ed. Ed Baxter.
Oh, that’s what
I said----
Counselor: No, you
said Ted.
Well, it was a mistake,
look I’ll change---
Counselor: It wasn’t
a mistake. You do that deliberately. You
know it drives him crazy and you purposely do it.
It was a mistake. Ted. I mean Ed. You know I must be getting him confused with that other unctuous, obnoxious, sycophantic, boor of a “News
Caster” on the old Mary Tyler More Show, that Ted Baxter.
Counselor: And you are not?
Thank you Yvonne.
Counselor: You are welcome.
Not just their local
station but the entire ABC News division (see e-mail Archive Out Box at the Moynihan)
has been here to this site. And NBC.com.
And Reuters.com. (Michael Weiner thought they were a German news agency.)
Counselor: And don’t forget WebTV.
Yes, dear, and WebTV
too. A great many of you know about Imus et. al., and their 12 years of harassment,
and you know that when Kerry, a candidate for the office of President of the
United States, goes on that show he also knows, and he knows
about the nature of the show, and he knows too what a degenerate Don Imus is. For
example, Don Imus has repeatedly advocated the use of nuclear weapons in the Second Gulf War.
He is against the war. Contradiction?
When the New York Times contacted Imus for clarification his explanation was,
“We are not the NewsHour.”
But Kerry, (like Clinton?),
is a risk taker. Going on the Don Imus air is just one small risk.
But just as the ABC
News division knows but will not report on how its local station, KGO, and its employees, have used their positions of power
to oppress and harasse me for these 12 long years, so too, ABC will not report on Kerry’s risky decision to go on the
Don Imus show. Admittedly not much of a risk, if everyone stays silent, but still,
some risk that his campaign might get mixed-up in a F. C. C. investigation during a close election.
Senator Hatch: “I’ve heard what you do to some of your listeners.”
Why take any risk? Why go on the Don Imus show?
And here you have it.
Just because
you are only now learning about all of this: the questions about the three, (three
and you are out), Purple Hearts, or the searing memory of Christmas Day in Cambodia, with Richard Nixon on the radio telling
lies, doesn’t mean that Mr. J. F. F. Kerry was unaware of the controversy.
Now, looking back, the supporters of the Swift Boat Veterans say, ‘See what a show he made about his
service in Vi-et-nam, that is why we are justified in going over all of this, etc.,
etc.’
But this is just
backwards isn’t it?
Kerry made his service
the center of his campaign because he knew that the controversy would soon over take him.
He knew Mr. O’Neil was writing a book. That the Swiftees were organizing. (For example, just cast your mind back over the intel. operation that has been done
on me. And I’m just a scribbler. If
this is the kind of thing that is done to someone who writes a few letters to the Senate think about what they do to people
who really get involved in politics.)
And yet the supporters
of the Swift Boat Veterans know that now Kerry can not very well say, ‘Look, the reason I tried to play up my service
was so I could try to overcome this storm that I knew was coming.’
So both sides
are locked into this falsity, and the news media will not report on it. Kerry
took the risk of playing up his record, even sailing over to the convention on a boat with “his vets” to try and
prepare for the coming onslaught. He could have said, ‘I disagreed with
the war, there was this option if you got three Purple Hearts and you can get out so I availed myself of the rules.’ And this attitude would have fitted much better with his subsequent anti war speeches
and going to Paris two times. Going
to Paris? Two times! (Not enough to oppose the war, one must also carry the flag of the North Vietnamese.)
One of the risks of
his high profile super patriot role, “reporting for duty,” is that his own maneuvering can now be used against
him. His opponents say: ‘We
are only responding to him.’ Or, ‘He is the one that made it an issue.’
And the beauty part
is that Kerry can’t say the truth, that he was only preparing for the storm of criticism he knew was coming.
And think of all those
who read their newspapers and watch their news casts and will never fathom what really is going one. People of otherwise normal intelligence, millions of them, will be arguing:
‘Well he made Vi-et-nam an issue. . . .’
All the subtlety of
the situation, not to say duplicity, will be lost on them.
For not only did Kerry
know about the coming controversy, so did many Democrats. They did not care that
a Naval Officer, while serving, would not only protest the war but would go to Paris.
Go to Paris?! They did not care before nor do they now. What concerns them
is the “marginal voter.” In Ohio. In Florida. The battle ground states as we call them. The “marginal
voter” may care that the U. S. Constitution bars anyone who while an officer of the armed forces gives aid and comfort
to the enemy in a time of war. This is the only extent to which the controversy
is understood by them: What will the marginal voter think?
ABC News knew about
the Swift Boat Veterans, but failed to report on the coming controversy. And
even now, when forced to report something does so only grudgingly and always from the perspective of what is best for liberal
Democrats. And all of this behavior is duplicitous. But this also comes as no surprise to the visitors of this web site.
For example, employees of ABC News, KGO, thought the burglary at the Colonial Motel and the theft of the notebook by
Michael Weiner, (a one time employee of KGO ABC), was good fun, and Ed Wygant and Jim Dunber, and Ted Baxter, I mean Ed Baxter,
Rosie Allen all KGO employees, all of them thought it a good joke.
But Rosie Allen, what
would the marginal voters of Ohio think?
And so we here at New
Ruskin College watch as you stumble like the blind
bumping into things, reaching out into the dark, lost.
You believe in, act
on, some of the most unbelievable propositions. Hopeless.
Bill O’Reilly
actually said, “What happened in Vietnam does not matter.” Does not matter? Millions of lives lost. Does not matter? That is not what
we were told at the time. Is this what you will say to us forty years on about
Iraq. Does not
matter?
William F. Buckley,
Jr., and Dr. George Will actually said that if they knew then what they know now they would not have supported our troops
liberating Iraq. These
what if questions are a waste of time unless there is a heuristic point to be made.
What is their point? Only that they, William F. Buckley, Jr. and Dr. George
Will, would have decided differently. Celebrity reasoning. They want us to know how they would have thought, to know about their puny psychology.
What do they
know now that they did not know then? The bio weapons are still missing. But I explained before the war that they are too portable to reasonably hope to catch
them with an invasion. So what then, the chemical weapons? They went to war for chemical weapons? Really? Nuclear? But they were told before the war that the Iraqis were trying to acquire yellow cake
which is only a raw material. This indicated a program that was just beginning
not one that was approaching completion.
So what is there
that is new? More evidence of state sponsorship of terror? More evidence of bio weapons programs? More evidence of the brutality of the old regime?
What then? Why would Will and Buckley lend their names to the chorus that the Second Gulf War was a “mistake?” Leave aside that men laid down their lives for us.
What is the heuristic point they are making? It can not just be that we
did not know one thing or another for in practice there will always be the unknown.
What in particular is it that we should learn from their “what if” counter factual, “if we knew then
. . .” what?
Nothing. They have no larger point that they are trying to make. Just two celebrities, who want us to know that they have changed their minds, no, not even that, just that
they would have been against the war then, if they knew then, what they know now. A
point that is childish. And for what? Because the bio weapons are missing? A
point I made before the war, was most probable.
And this same George
Will often made comments about the letters. (see Math Project Archives and New Ruskin College Project Archives at the Moynihan)
Both Will and Moynihan made repeated references to them. And we are confident that he has visited the site, though he has not recently made reference to it. From
his place at ABC News it is almost certain that he has information about what has been done to me. Yet he is silent.
Oh, he will keep
us informed about his changing psychological states of mind on the Second Gulf War, but as for the truth . . . that is something
else.
During one Foreign
Relations Committee meeting, during the opening statements, several Senators, one right after the other, made references to
the Math Project Letters. Finally, it was Senator Kerry’s turn, he looked around at his colleagues, clearly having understood their references for he had himself read
the letter and said, “What are we saying here, we have some affirmative
duty to illume . . .”
From the Math Project
motto, which itself came from the line: “. . . to kindle, to burn, to illume.”
But it appears
to me that you are all still in the dark.
Counselor: To burn, to kindle, to illume.
What?
Counselor: A second sun array’d in flame,/ To burn, to kindle, to illume.
. . . Yvonne, . . .
Counselor: Yes?
Thank you. . .
Counselor: You are welcome.
Lecture Notes: 08-12-04 Silence
For example most
of you have acquiesced in silence not because of your egotism but simply to avoid “trouble.” But do you think they are appreciative that you are subservient?
They are not appreciative. You are playing into their egotism, feeding
it. Your submission only confirms their low opinion and worst fears. This is what most of you do not understand. In your cooperation
with Michael Weiner, and Ron Owens, etc., your cover up of the burglary, all of it, you are in your own small way reenacting
the NAZI persecution, 1933 to 1938. This includes the subversion and corruption
of the police. You resurrect their
worst fears.
There were some Germans
who asked publicly, like Gene Burns, “When will we say enough is enough?” (Wann sagen wir genug sind genug?) Even as late as 1938 some continued to resist.
But most did not. The Weimar Republic
was destroyed before the NAZIS took over the state. The political culture was
destroyed by millions of small acts of cowardice. Do you want to keep your job? Is that why you do not give evidence? So
now you know what it was like being a German.
Rosie Allen: “Well, I don’t want to get shot.”
See Rosie Allen, now you
know what it was like to be a German. You know what is happening but you do not
dare speak up against it. You are
not acting out of egotism, but fear. However,
you are feeding their egotism.
Yvonne knew it was wrong
to betray her client. And her “friends” at KQED, they also knew it
was wrong. That is why they lied. That
is just the point. Of course it is wrong.
Isn’t it delightful. This is how it was for the NAZIS. Do you suppose they all talked about the “international Jewish conspiracy?” It really did not matter to most of them, it was just “theory.”
They were told that it was ok to hate these ones. Fine, for whatever reason. If reason were involved, for example,
one could have shown that if Jews were capitalists and Jews were communists then obviously being a Jew was not determinative. Not a “conspiracy” but an unimportant, independent, variable. But we are not discussing reason, we are discussing egotism. No
one had to tell Scott Bobro the reasons why he should harasse me. Who cares why? He is not an intellectual. Nor did it
matter for the person on the phone asking him how “it” went? Just
a goy, who cares why? (see Intel Operations No. 8)
There is no question of
argumentation, or logic. No reason at all.
Do you suppose that you could have a long discussion with Scott Bobro and discover why he harassed me at Farmers and
that by persuasion he could be brought around to understand that he was wrong? He
knows he was wrong. That is what he was trying to accomplish. He just went too far. He was clumsy. Frank Blaha at GAB Robins is another example. Being wrong is part of the fun of the thing. It feeds their egos.
Michael Weiner and Ron
Owens are egotists, of course, they are entertainers. Both have used the Holocaust
to justify their misconduct. (Owens more cagily than Weiner, but it was not just
coincidence that he spoke of his dead grandparents; killed in the Holocaust, every time I wrote to Yvonne about his treachery.(see
Michael Weiner Holocaust Denier, Lecture Notes: 07-10-04))
But their Holocaust is not the historical Holocaust. Their
Holocaust is a function of their egotism, their pride. And your failure to denounce
their use of the Holocaust, misuse of the Holocaust, your acquiescence to their egotistical use, misuse, of the Holocaust,
encourages them in this their self justifications. Their egotism feeds off your submission.
Nor is this use, denial,
of the Holocaust an isolated, individual, occurrence. It is international in
scope and can be seen in the Middle East crisis. There
are settlers in Israel’s territories who speak about
Palestinians the way Weiner does on his radio program. (Much of Weiner’s
material coming from a local radio program called Jew Boy Zionist Radio.) They
say Palestinians are “dogs” that should be “shot” in
the streets. They are “Brooklyn thugs,” to use Christopher Hitchens’ phrase to described them. As Victor Frankl has explained the Holocaust can be used to justify fascist policies.
“If fascism ever
comes to Britain it will come in the form of a billionaire
preaching the Sermon on the Mount.” (Orwell) The fascist uses what ever
symbols that are at hand; what ever symbols are believed. The fascist is not an educator. He is a manipulator. The Holocaust is just another symbol; another
way of influencing and manipulating people’s emotions, thoughts.
No, your acquiescence
does not reassure them. It confirms there low opinion of you. When Michael Weiner shouts out some obscenity about Moslems, the callers who express their concurrence
only confirm his low opinion of his audience, for he knows they might as easily be talking about Jews. Ron Owens’ fellow employees who help conceal the evidence of the stolen notebook do not reassure
him, rather they alarm him. He knows how all of this could be turned around. His own paranoia is increased by the knowledge that he could just as easily be the
target of your lies.
The extremist Israeli
Brooklyn thugs are in agreement with the Palestinian terrorists. For both violence
is the preferred method of resolving differences. Both claim God. Both have examples of grievances, etc.. And for neither is
reason a possibility. For reason would require the subordination of their egos
to reason, which for someone like Michael Weiner is an impossibility. He is beyond
reason.
And acquiescence to either
extremist will not win their confidence, just the opposite. Yasser Arafat did
not become more reasonable as more concessions were made. Rather his opinion
that he could bully his way was confirmed. As with Michael Weiner and Ron Owens, the more they realize the willingness of
others to lie for them, the more their paranoia of just how untrustworthy the Gentile are is heightened, their worst nightmare
confirmed.
This is why my Last
Letter, where I denounced Yvonne and her “friends” at KQED, and compared their covert actions, their immoral conduct,
to the same moral decline that lead to the demise of the Weimar Republic,
so antagonized Ron Owens and Michael Weiner and Michael Krasney. My argument
was an insult to their vanity. They knew it was wrong for Yvonne to betray her
client. That was not the point. Of
course it was wrong. So what? She
is the daughter of Holocaust survivors. If she can be subjected to criticism what is the point of being a daughter of Holocaust survivors?
More to the point
what about a former disk jockey who only lost grandparents? No, this has to stop
here. We can’t have some goy getting away with this. And especially for Jews who have lost their faith, the Holocaust is the touch stone. They may not have God, or faith, but there will always be Auschwitz. And a daughter of survivors. The Holy of Holies. And like comic creations they bring to their task, their mock religion, the same sanctimony one associates
with real religions. The same absolutist commitment one expects from the religious.
Pure egotism.
And their persecution
has spanned 12 years now. Protected by your silence. Fed by your silence.
And all of this
is but one aspect of Bay Area culture, America 2004.
For example, because Ron
Owens and I are White males we are said to be in the same “category.” Our
incomes are averaged together to report White male income. Every year the liberals
in the newsrooms all across America will run the stories about
Women only earning .73 cents for every White male dollar of income. Everyone
knows it is a lie.
Similar lies are promulgated
to justify Blacks in their hatred of White males, etc.
And what of the
$500 million being spent on the redesigned Bay Bridge
to make it pretty? Oh, without comment the price has been raised $1.4 billion. The elite wants towers and cables, not just
decorative towers and cables either, but real ones. The Bay Area elite proposes
to take an additional $1.4 billion from the people and there is no objection, no review, no discussion.
Our elite wants a pretty
bridge. Silence.
Women only earn .73 cents
for every dollar White males earn. Silence.
Ron Owens and Michael
Weiner and Michael Krasney, etc. ? Silence.
Lecture Notes: 08-11-04
No one will come
forward and give evidence. Many have visited.
The IRS visited six times in one week. Sodos
and Bobro checked in. Imus and Weiner also.
Imus even said in one show, “What can happen . . . I mean if no one says anything?” Watching and waiting. Like Michael Krasney waiting on the
phone, “OK, he’s off the line I can put you through . . .” Contemptible.
What can I do? One against so many? I wrote the Last
Letter in 1992. I did not set up this website until 2003, only after it became
clear that Imus had gotten some contact at GAB Robins. (see Psy Ops)
For 11 years one
after another, Ron Owens, Michael Weiner, Michael Krasney, and many others, (the IRS under
the Clinton regime), I tried to ignore them but they just would not leave me alone.
For example, I was
at my sister’s home (1992) and commented that “The mass media is a hydra headed monster.” The following Friday a fat balding reporter for the Sacramento Bee repeated the line. What have you all wanted?
Glee? A thrill? Just wanted to prove that if a large number of people
work together to destroy another human being they can succeed? Was it ever in
doubt?
In all of this there
is nothing unusual, nothing out of the ordinary. This is how you live your lives. You have been mistaken. Wrong. You should not have done these things to me. Others of you,
should have intervened; you should have at least given evidence. Testify.
But this failing,
this mistake, this is you, this is how you live your whole lives.
This is how you
go through the entirety of your lives. One misperception, misapprehension, after another, followed by a misjudgment, a misconstruction
of what you are seeing, what you are experiencing. Then your subsequent actions
which flow from these errors lead to mistakes and missteps and finally the process concludes with the inevitable misinterpretation
of the results of your missteps, leading to a new round of mistakes and wrongful conduct.
You are worse than
lost. If you were simply lost there would be a chance that you would find the
pole star, you might note on which side of the trees the moss is growing, etc. But
unfortunately you are not simply lost, you have a map. You think you do know
what you are doing.
You have harassed
and chased me from one work place to another. I could not even have a quite conversation
with my sister without some jackass on the TV making a comment. The break in
at the Colonial Motel. The months of the police following me. Even now when they pass by they sound their sirens to let me know they are waiting. Waiting for what? What is the point of all of this harassment?
There is no point,
no objective. This is simply the beast you are.
I only regret that
I will not be present when you get yours. But I have every confidence now that
I know what it will be like for you. The bed clothes plastered tightly to your
sweat soaked skin. Open sores.
Or not. If you live
a good long life it will end the same way. Haven’t you realized yet that
you have already died many times? Do you remember that person you were when you
were 12? That person died a long time ago.
You must have sensed this? You are dieing in every moment. A thousand years, a thousand million years, from now, who
cares?
An end in every
breath. And just as well too. An
end also to all your ignorance? It will not last much longer.
Seeing how momentary
life is, it is precious, just because it is so ephemeral.
Wouldn’t you
like to see the world once before you die? Why wait one moment longer?
From here you can
see out all across the sound, this is the view, look out to the very edge of the horizon, or right up close . . .
For a few years
I did continue to write to Yvonne. She never responded. Often others would make references to these letters. Ron Owens
never failed to reply. His explanation for his conduct was always the same, “I
had relatives who died in the Holocaust.”
Now which word in
that sentence do you think Ron Owens most emphasized? Died? Holocaust? Relatives?
No, no, no: “I”. What
was significant for Ron Owens was not that they died, in the Holocaust or even that they were his relatives. No, what was important was that they were Ron Owens’.
Egotism. For the egotist the Holocaust is a straight shot right to the ego.
Why did he arrange
for the homosexual to harasse me in the gym? He went on the air with his advice
about how to handle homosexual’s harassment the very next day. Then I wrote
Yvonne a week later and mentioned the incident, and Owens was on the air about his relatives
who died in the Holocaust. Then a month or so later after I wrote Yvonne
about the incident at the courier office, (see Dear Yvonne Archive), he went back on the air the very next day mentioning
his relatives. Emphasis on his. This
is his excuse.
But what if he is
wrong. What if he has misinterpreted History?
What if he is acting on a series of mistaken beliefs? For example, Ron
Owens: What was the date of Kristallnacht?
Ok, so you do not know the date. Was it early
or late in the Hitler regime? Why would this
be significant? You have to know some of
these things if you are going to have an opinion, especially if you are going to use that opinion to justify your harassment
of a fellow human being, so many decades later. If you are going to guide your
lives by your maps of the world you have to know how to read them. November 9-10, 1938. 7,500 stores were
destroyed.
1938! A year before the beginning of the war. Do you understand
what this means? Hitler’s willing executioners? How many boycotts had been established? How many Brown Shirts
stood in front of how many stores handing out how many flyers for how many years? More
to the point how many of Hitler’s willing executioners brushed past how
many Brown Shirts? How many ordinary Gentiles defied the boycotts? Is Kristallnacht evidence of German anti Semitism or, given that it was November 1938, is it not itself
evidence of the failure of NAZI policies? The persistence of the human spirit?
After how many years
of NAZI rule, did ordinary “willing executioners” continue to shop at Jewish stores, in open defiance of state
organized boycotts? (Why did the Brown Shirts change into civilian clothes to
vandalize the stores?)
Here we are looking
all the way to the horizon as far as we can see. If you are going to navigate
around the world on your assumptions shouldn’t you double check to see
if your assumptions conform to reality? Instead of insinuating your relatives
deaths as a justification for your covert actions, using your dead grandparents to justify your misconduct, shouldn’t
you be willing to stand up like a man, and debate honestly?
Your cowardice prevents
you, Ron Owens, from discussing your false assumptions. But the errors, the mistakes,
the egotistical contrivances, that you use to justify your misconduct, all of this is simple error. You are mistaken. You do not understand what has happened. Or what is happening now. So all your explanations are merely excuses, chosen not
by reason but by your ego to flatter your vanity. You are lost.
Attacking me will
not correct your misunderstanding anymore than the ADL’s attempt to block the publication of A Nation on Trial, could
improve our understanding of history.
But because Yvonne
is the daughter of Holocaust survivors, Ron Owens’ egotism caused him to think that he was justified in harassing me
because I dared to criticize her conduct and that of her “friends” at KQED.
(I did not then know about Ron Owens’ involvement and that of KGO, (though she had told me that she knew Ron
Owens.)) Because you are not as cracked as Michael Weiner, though like all entertainers
your egos are out of all control, you will not deliver a tirade, as he did, about
the “Jewish children killed in the Holocaust,” snorting up the Holocaust right into your ego, to justify yourself.
(see Lecture Notes: 07-10-04 Michael Weiner Holocaust Denier)
No, Ron Owens is
more subtle than that. You insinuate the corpses of your dead grandparents with
offhand references, always indirect, leaving yourself an escape route should the lights be turned on. But Ron Owens you are mistaken. This is not about the Holocaust
this is about Ron Owens’ ego. Your claim of anti Semitism is just your
excuse. You are not fighting the NAZIS you are a NAZI. Like the Brown Shirts you have changed into civilian clothes, (Hawaiian shirts). This is how the Weimar Republic
was destroyed, from the inside, by mistaken, misguided, people like Ron Owens. Egomaniacal
people in positions of power who chose to betray the law.
And even so, the
Republic survived from 1919 to 1933. And even after the NAZI’s took control
of the state “ordinary executioners” continued to shop at Jewish
shops in open defiance of the NAZIS. In the end people like Ron Owens finally
brought down the Republic. No one of us can stand up to such an onslaught indefinitely. In time the worms are victorious over the lion.
This is why I say that we are all citizens of Weimar. We each of us depend on our community, the bonds of affection, intellectual honesty, we trust in good faith.
But this misinterpretation
of History, (with a capital H), is only part of the view from here. Vanity, egotism,
are not always mixed in so thoroughly.
For example, . .
. to be continued . . .
Lecture Notes: 08-10-04
"Two senior Pakistani officials said the reports
in "Western media" enabled other al-Qaeda suspects to get away.
"Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized
our plan and some al-Qaeda suspects ran away," one of the officials said on condition of anonymity.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice acknowledged
Sunday that Khan's name had been disclosed to reporters in Washington "on background," meaning that it could be published,
but the information could not be attributed by name to the official who had revealed it.
The Pakistani officials said that after Khan's arrest,
other al-Qaeda suspects abruptly changed their hide-outs and moved to unknown places.
The first official described the publication of
the news of Khan's arrest as "very disturbing."
"We have checked. No Pakistani official made this
intelligence leak," he said.
Without naming any country, he said it was the responsibility
of "coalition partners" to examine how a foreign journalist was able to have an access to the "classified information" about
Khan's arrest.
The official refused to comment whether any U.S.
official was responsible for the leak.
On Monday, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., asked
the White House to explain why the name of Khan was revealed."---- U. S. Tody 08-10-04
Lecture Notes: 08-07-04
Burned. (Not the first time the USA has burned
a source.)
“Security experts
contacted by Reuters said they were shocked by the revelations that the source whose information led to the alert was identified
within days, and that U.S. officials had confirmed his name.
“ ‘The whole
thing smacks of either incompetence or worse," said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane's Defense publications.
"You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in
there in the first place?
“ ‘It
goes against all the rules of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It's not exactly cloak and
dagger undercover work if it's on the front pages every time there's a development, is it?"
“A source such as
Khan -- cooperating with the authorities while staying in active contact with trusting al Qaeda agents -- would be among the
most prized assets imaginable, he said.
“ ‘Running
agents within a terrorist organization is the Holy Grail of intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback
which negates months and years of work, which may be difficult to recover."
“ Rolf Tophoven,
head of the Institute for Terrorism Research and Security Policy in Essen, Germany,
said allowing Khan's name to become public was "very unclever."
"If it is correct,
then I would say its another debacle of the American intelligence community. Maybe other serious sources could have been detected
or guys could have been captured in the future" if Khan's identity had been protected, he said.”--- Reuters, 08-07-04
“ . . . incompetence
or worse.” Or worse?
I think we need to start
considering what the “or worse” could be.
I also cooperated with
the United States in an investigation. And I also was burned by the United States. (see IRS and the Illegals from the North.)
Or worse?
Psy Ops Eight : 08-07-04
So now the San Rafael
Police have dispensed with using their junkies as intermediaries, and have now
returned to doing their own harassment. Now when ever they drive by me, they sound their siren, just a little
shot. Their way of saying hello?
And if the incredulous
reader is thinking, ‘Oh, no, they wouldn’t still go on with it . . . that this continuing harassment is a tacit
admission that it is all true! The burglary at the Colonial Motel, giving the stolen notebook to Michael Weiner, (or the ADL who gave it to Weiner), the follow up harassment,
the unlawful detention and search, the harassment by Officer Agustus, all of it, they are admitting, by their conduct, they
are admitting that it is all true,’ ---
if the reader is thinking this then the reader is correct. It is all true.
But what the reader still
does not appreciate is that the San Rafael Police Department does not give a damn what the reader thinks. To hell with you, and your stinking civil rights, and, and,
what? The rule of law? Give me a
break.
Isn’t it yet
clear to you? There is no law. Or
rather, they have the guns, they are the law.
Do you think they
are ashamed to act so wrongfully? Is Michael Krasney ( of KQED, see Lecture Notes: 08-03-04
The Truth) ashamed
to have been exposed for the small minded fraud that he is? He is proud of his
harassment. This is part of what it means to be post liberal.
Wrongful conduct? How bourgeois! Law? Bash! The Law is for suckers.
Get with it.
Welcome to the Bay
Area, the post liberal Bay Area.
Counselor: So Sidney is a stand up guy for you?
Please don’t do that.
Counselor: I’m just saying that who is it that is there for you?
Yvonne . . .
Counselor: I know that you think we do not have a social conscience . . . but who is it that is there for you,
do you see?
My God woman, where is this coming
from? What deep seated antagonism is this
. . . can’t you see that this is a projection? What must you think
of me? ---
Counselor: I know, I know, but when it comes right down to it who is there for you?
The Jew?
Please stop it . . .
Counselor: I’m just saying Sidney was there for you, did you see? And Imus has to take it off the air to run some old interview. I’m telling you . . . Sid was there fighting for air time for you . . . and for a goy at that, just think about that.
I’m begging you, please
stop . . .
Counselor: Well ok but remember Sid Rosenberg, he was there for you . . .
I just can’t . . . I just
. . . what must you think of me . . . please
stop . . . Yvonne my dear . . .
Counselor: Remember Sid Rosenberg.
Lecture Notes: 08-03-04
The Truth
We have in the past dealt
with many forms of corruption. We have discussed corruption in high office, (
for example, the failure to heed the warnings of the IDF that high jacked airliners could be flown into office blocks), and in small things, (see Psy Ops One Two and Three).
Yet in all of our discussions
I have felt a strange detachment. As if you heard, or read my words, but failed
to comprehend them. It is, I am at last sure now, not a question of disbelief. For example, Rosie Allen and Gene Burns actually did comment on the stolen notebook
and the San Rafael Police were actually following me; and they really did call
me “the Colonial Motel Suspect,” on their police radios. Many KGO
employees have indicated their knowledge of the stolen notebook. (See Intel Operations)
Mrs. Jack Swanson actually
did receive the Cen Cal Letters and comment on them on her radio program. Don
Imus actually did . . . well you got it; you know the truth of the things that have been alleged here. Some of you know the truth because you are actually the ones who have done the harassment. (For example, Michael Weiner followed me all the way to Berkeley
one morning in 2003.)
However, not withstanding
this knowledge of the truth, for some reason the corruption fails to register on your consciousness? Why? Is this, your failure to act, not itself the sign and
proof of your degeneracy?
Do you not think,
for example, that people are being sent to prison based in part on the testimony of San Rafael Police Officers? There are real people going into real prison cells, doing real time, because of the evidence of the San
Rafael Police. Yet you know that the San Rafael Police lied when it denied it
had any information on the “Colonial Motel Suspect” in response to the Freedom of Information Request by my attorney.
When Officer Agustus (see
Psy Ops number Three) shouted angrily that “it is not all about you,” he
certainly was right. Partly it is about the integrity of the San Rafael Police,
but in a larger sense it is about you, visitors to this website. It is about
your knowledge of these things. It is about your failure to act.
This failure to act is
the degeneracy. Here in the Bay Area you see, it is a living example, a laboratory
experiment, of what happens to a society when it is submerged into degeneracy. The
70,000 shortfall in houses to jobs in San Francisco is the proof of the degeneracy. The average home in the Bay Area requires an income of $150,000 a year
several multiples of the average Bay Area income. The failure, the inability, the unwillingness, to build houses is the degeneracy.
Has the oligarchic
elite acted on the this housing crises? (Has the reader acted on what he has
read here?) No, of course, our elite has done nothing. Yet the Oakland San Francisco
Bay Bridge was redesigned to look like a suspension
bridge for an added $500 million. Our elite thought changing the design would
make it look pretty.
This is the view. We can look at things in the far distance, the failure to secure the borders, or at
things in the middle distance, the housing crises in the Bay Area, or we can look at things close up in the foreground . .
.
When I was at the AAA
auto club in a room the size of an aircraft hanger, filled with 250 adjusters, to my right, on the other side of the high
partition, sat Johnson, a young black man from Oakland, who mysteriously left
for Texas. As the claims section
temporary I was tasked with taking his voice mail messages. One of the messages
was from his probation officer. I called the Alameda Probation Office back: ‘Where is Johnson?’
I answered: We do not know, we heard he was going to Texas.
‘Texas?’ Was the reply, ‘I didn’t
give him permission to go to Texas. Oh,
my, ok thank you.’
Behind me, on the
other side of the low partition, sat Colleen Jackson, who was missing her front teeth.
A large white woman in her late thirties but she looked to be in her fifties. Colleen
was looking forward to the release of her husband from “the Q.” (San
Quinton.) She was complaining to a colleague that one of her husbands “friends”
was staying with her but his drug use and all night partying were making her normal routine difficult. Across from me was Jack Dingby, a former police officer, a man in his late thirties.
And who is waiting
on the phone for me? Out of 250 adjusters? Who was calling on a file not assigned
to this claim section?
Mr. Michael Krasney? Would you like to explain who was calling me? Professor? Would you like to explain how the former Mrs. Dr. Dean Edel, Rose Guilbault, Vice
President of Public Affairs for the AAA, arranged for that call to be routed to my phone?
Or perhaps Rose
Guilbault, a former KGO employee, would care to answer for Mr. Krasney, who is himself also
a former KGO employee. Can you explain why I was let go a few days later? There were millions of dollars in unpaid medical bills at AAA. Thousands of unanswered phone calls at AAA. Plenty of work
at AAA. Was it a budget problem?
If the reader thinks that
we have strayed from our subject, corruption, degeneracy, think again.
Mr. Michael Krasney,
professor and KQED radio talk show host, and Rose Guilbault are both perfect examples of the Marin
County, post liberal Bay Area Elite. Mr.
Krasney no doubt objected to my protests in front of KQED. (see Last Letter Archive)
Both liberal Democrats, they perhaps disagreed with the political views expressed.
Perhaps Mr. Krasney, like Ron Owens and Michael Weiner, had some particular reason to object to my criticism of Yvonne
[deletion], the daughter of Holocaust survivors? Perhaps Mr. Krasney and Ron
Owens were among the “friends” of Yvonne who persuaded her to betray her client in the first place?
Reflect, dear reader,
that the AAA is a “non profit” organization. Ms. Guilbault is not
answerable to any shareholders. Like all “non profits” it is controlled
by a small group of powerful people whose power arises not because they were elected, not because they are meeting the needs
of the market place, no, rather their power is secured because they control the organization.
And KQED? Another “non profit.” How is it that one becomes a “vice president of ‘public affairs’”? Contacts? Influence?
And Mr. Krasney? Do ratings drive his “performance”?
As we have reported, (see
Lecture Notes June and July), the Bay Area elite has taken control of the levers of power, and exert their influence not for
“liberal” policies, as many simple minded entertainment conservatives (like Rush Limbaugh) contend. They are post liberal. When Senator Boxer, (another Marin
County resident), claims that she supports tightening border controls, does anyone
take her seriously? How would she find gardeners for her Marin home? (Did you provide Social Security payments for your illegals Senator Boxer?
Workers Comp? Health benefits? No? Not very liberal.)
When Senator Feinstein
down zoned San Francisco, five times before moving out to Marin, did she do so
for liberal reasons? She bought multi story buildings then prevented any competition
by down zoning her neighbors. Oligarchy. The building codes were also changed so that building affordable housing was made
illegal. As the middle class was forced out by the oligarchic control of the apparatus of the state, the Bay Area elite has
sought to replace the lost citizens with helots, illegals, who can be deported at will, and to whom no rights need be extended. Is this liberalism? Or is it corruption? Degeneracy? And note the same disconnect. Just as the reader may know the
truth about what has been done to me, and yet does nothing, so too the Bay Area knows the truth about the manipulation of
the power of the state to dominate and control the housing market, and again, nothing is done.
If you owned a business
that dealt in the payment of large sums, for example like those involved in claims
settlements, would you hire a person with a criminal record? Still on probation? A woman waiting for her husband to get out of “the Q”? For the Bay Area Elite not only would they hire such people they are positively preferred. A corrupt elites needs an equally corrupt, powerless, servile class to serve it. And what happens to the ordinary citizen who gets caught in the way of this oligarchic machine? What could happen? You needn’t look very far. Look at today’s headlines:
You could ask Annette
Stineman, 78, and Ivan Stineman, 85, what might happen. But first you would have
to piece them back together, starting with their heads. Oh, and their teeth,
which were hammered out of their severed heads by a Dean Witter employee, Glenn
Taylor Helzer and his brother Justin Helzer. Glenn Helzer, was the stock broker
for the Stinemans. Dean Witter had recently set up a “discount” brokerage
and hired Helzer to help the Stinemans
as their investment adviser. After beating and drugging the Stinemans the Helzer
brothers forced Ivan Stineman to write out a check for $100,000.
But how to cash it? And here you have the perfect example of the corruption that is Marin
County and the Bay Area generally. They persuaded Selina Bishop, then 22, the daughter of blues guitarist Elvin Bishop, to
cash the check for them. They then killed all three: the Stinemans, Selina, and
then they killed two witnesses, Selina’s mother and a friend.
Question: Why did Selina Bishop agree to deposit the check into her bank account? (Don
Imus? Did you know Elvin Bishop? Ever
do a line with him? Do you remember?)
Marin
County values? Bay Area values? Why did Yvonne [deletion] listen to the likes of Ron Owens and Michael Krasney and
betray her client?
So here you have
all these elements. While I am at AAA in Concord
I get a call just before I am let go. The Helzers, also in Concord,
kidnap and kill five people, including Selina Bishop, of Marin County,
after she paid them the $100,000. Earlier, the San Rafael Police are following
me and referring to me over their police radio as the “Colonial Motel Suspect.”
Michael Weiner has been
reading from the stolen notebook, the day after the burglary, that occurred at the Colonial Motel. Mrs. Jack Swanson and Brian Wilson, (of the Beach Boys), also have been making references to the stolen
notebook, the next Monday after the burglary. While the San Rafael Police have
been following me, Gene Burns asks Rosie Allen, “When will we say enough is enough?” Rosie Allen says, “Well, I don’t want to get shot.”
Meanwhile other employees also make references to the stolen notebook.
Then the AAA claims supervisor
approves two $15,000 payments to two claimants and the adjuster Jackson calls her old man’s friend who has been staying
in her apartment these last two months, doing drugs, and she meets with Johnson, the adjuster on parole. They discuss the file and prepare the claim settlement checks.
Meanwhile Senators Feinstein
and Boxer of Marin, Michael Krasney, Rose Guilbault, Michael Weiner, all also of Marin, Yvonne [deletion], also of Marin,
is persuaded to betray her client, the San Rafael Police, Marin, follow the “Colonial
Motel Suspect,” then Salina Bishop, Marin, agrees to cash the $100,000 from the Stinemans, their bodies were thrown
into the San Francisco Bay off of Marin, . . .
Counselor: What?
To be continued
. . .
|
